Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But isn't this just another example of the Federal government imposing it's views upon the states? If this had been a decision mandating the recognition of gay marriage by the states would the reaction be different?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But isn't this just another example of the Federal government imposing it's views upon the states? If this had been a decision mandating the recognition of gay marriage by the states would the reaction be different?

It is, in the sense that the Bill of Rights are the views of the federal government. The decision says that the second amendment applies to state and local governments, just like the first, fourth, and fifth. A decision mandating recognition of gay marriage would not be applying any provision of the Bill of Rights to the states, nor any other part of the Constitution I can name (except maybe that slippery commerce clause), so it would certainly get a different reaction from me for that reason if no other.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sailors who agree that the second amendment protects an individual right, and that it applies to all levels of government, might consider joining or donating to the Second Amendment Foundation, which is the group of gun nuts that finally forced the Supreme Court to recognize and affirm those positions.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Boy, the Supreme Court speaks for the first time in a very long time on an amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the Court was closely divided on ideological lines, yet the crickets are deafening.

No one except learningj24 wants to step up to say how wrong the gun nuts were to bring this case, or to defend the reasoning of the minority? How very odd.

Breyer wrote, and Obama's appointee Sotomayor agreed, that the Heller decision should be overturned:

there is no popular consensus that the private

self-defense right described in Heller is fundamental.

...

Unlike the First Amendment’s rights of free speech, free

press, assembly, and petition, the private self-defense

right does not comprise a necessary part of the democratic

process that the Constitution seeks to establish. See, e.g.,

Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis,

J., concurring). Unlike the First Amendment’s religious

protections, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against

unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth and Sixth

Amendments’ insistence upon fair criminal procedure, and

the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and

unusual punishments, the private self-defense right does

not significantly seek to protect individuals who might

otherwise suffer unfair or inhumane treatment at the

hands of a majority.

That last statement is particularly ironic because this case was an opportunity for the Court to overturn their own decision in Cruikshank, in which they said that a white mob that massacred 160+ blacks did not deprive them of any federally protected right to assemble or to bear arms because the Bill of Rights did not apply to lower governments.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Boy, the Supreme Court speaks for the first time in a very long time on an amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the Court was closely divided on ideological lines, yet the crickets are deafening.

No one except learningj24 wants to step up to say how wrong the gun nuts were to bring this case, or to defend the reasoning of the minority? How very odd.

Breyer wrote, and Obama's appointee Sotomayor agreed, that the Heller decision should be overturned:

there is no popular consensus that the private

self-defense right described in Heller is fundamental.

...

Unlike the First Amendment’s rights of free speech, free

press, assembly, and petition, the private self-defense

right does not comprise a necessary part of the democratic

process that the Constitution seeks to establish. See, e.g.,

Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis,

J., concurring). Unlike the First Amendment’s religious

protections, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against

unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth and Sixth

Amendments’ insistence upon fair criminal procedure, and

the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and

unusual punishments, the private self-defense right does

not significantly seek to protect individuals who might

otherwise suffer unfair or inhumane treatment at the

hands of a majority.

That last statement is particularly ironic because this case was an opportunity for the Court to overturn their own decision in Cruikshank, in which they said that a white mob that massacred 160+ blacks did not deprive them of any federally protected right to assemble or to bear arms because the Bill of Rights did not apply to lower governments.

While I agree with Sol in his last post, above, why should I/we gloat over a decision that should have been a no-brainer in the first place? Good job Supreme Court. Now let's move-on to repeal ObamaCare.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Boy, the Supreme Court speaks for the first time in a very long time on an amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the Court was closely divided on ideological lines, yet the crickets are deafening.

No one except learningj24 wants to step up to say how wrong the gun nuts were to bring this case, or to defend the reasoning of the minority? How very odd.

Breyer wrote, and Obama's appointee Sotomayor agreed, that the Heller decision should be overturned:

there is no popular consensus that the private

self-defense right described in Heller is fundamental.

...

Unlike the First Amendment’s rights of free speech, free

press, assembly, and petition, the private self-defense

right does not comprise a necessary part of the democratic

process that the Constitution seeks to establish. See, e.g.,

Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis,

J., concurring). Unlike the First Amendment’s religious

protections, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against

unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth and Sixth

Amendments’ insistence upon fair criminal procedure, and

the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and

unusual punishments, the private self-defense right does

not significantly seek to protect individuals who might

otherwise suffer unfair or inhumane treatment at the

hands of a majority.

That last statement is particularly ironic because this case was an opportunity for the Court to overturn their own decision in Cruikshank, in which they said that a white mob that massacred 160+ blacks did not deprive them of any federally protected right to assemble or to bear arms because the Bill of Rights did not apply to lower governments.

While I agree with Sol in his last post, above, why should I/we gloat over a decision that should have been a no-brainer in the first place?

Because it took decades and a lot of money from gun nuts to make it happen, and after a few decades of listening to that stupid "collective rights" argument put forth by gungrabbers and the ACLU, anybody would want to gloat a bit when it finally goes down the toilet where it belongs.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But isn't this just another example of the Federal government imposing it's views upon the states? If this had been a decision mandating the recognition of gay marriage by the states would the reaction be different?

It is, in the sense that the Bill of Rights are the views of the federal government. The decision says that the second amendment applies to state and local governments, just like the first, fourth, and fifth. A decision mandating recognition of gay marriage would not be applying any provision of the Bill of Rights to the states, nor any other part of the Constitution I can name (except maybe that slippery commerce clause), so it would certainly get a different reaction from me for that reason if no other.

In another sense though, the states agreed to the right to bear arms when they agreed on the constitution or joined the union.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence. As Eli Cooper, one target of such violence, is said to have explained, “ ‘[t]he Negro has been run over for fifty years, but it must stop now, and pistols and shotguns are the only weapons to stop a mob.’ ” Church Burnings Follow Negro Agitator’s Lynching, Chicago Defender, Sept. 6, 1919, in id. , at 124. Sometimes, as in Cooper’s case, self-defense did not succeed. He was dragged from his home by a mob and killed as his wife looked on. Ibid. But at other times, the use of firearms allowed targets of mob violence to survive. One man recalled the night during his childhood when his father stood armed at a jail until morning to ward off lynchers. See Cottrol, 354. The experience left him with a sense, “not ‘of powerlessness, but of the “possibilities of salvation” ’ ” that came from standing up to intimidation. Ibid.

In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. There is nothing about Cruikshank ’s contrary holding that warrants its retention.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No one except learningj24 wants to step up to say how wrong the gun nuts were to bring this case, or to defend the reasoning of the minority? How very odd.

Whoops! Don't put words in my mouth. As a bit of a gun nut myself, I actually agree with the 2nd as an individual right based some of the pre-Constitution documents I've looked at (check out the Founder's Constitution for documents behind sections and the 1st 10 Amendments of the Constitution). My point was that some people heralding this decision are some of the same that decry encroaching federal powers.

Philosophicly, how can we maintain a government "by the people, of the people and for the people" if we are afraid of those people being armed under reasonable restrictions?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No one except learningj24 wants to step up to say how wrong the gun nuts were to bring this case, or to defend the reasoning of the minority? How very odd.

Whoops! Don't put words in my mouth. As a bit of a gun nut myself, I actually agree with the 2nd as an individual right based some of the pre-Constitution documents I've looked at (check out the Founder's Constitution for documents behind sections and the 1st 10 Amendments of the Constitution). My point was that some people heralding this decision are some of the same that decry encroaching federal powers.

Philosophicly, how can we maintain a government "by the people, of the people and for the people" if we are afraid of those people being armed under reasonable restrictions?

You are confused.

It is entirely consistent to celebrate the Court's decision in this case and to resist the expansion of Federal powers NOT granted our Federal govt by the Constitution. Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers #45:"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

The Constitution and Bill of Rights both stand in the way of increasing Federal power.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Whoops! Don't put words in my mouth. ...My point was that some people heralding this decision are some of the same that decry encroaching federal powers.

Sorry. Your point is correct.

I thought you were decrying the encroaching federal powers, which is what the minority was doing in this case, extending the irony you are pointing out in the other direction. These are the same people who have been writing the incorporation of other amendments into law for years, now they're suddenly worried about federal power.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No one except learningj24 wants to step up to say how wrong the gun nuts were to bring this case, or to defend the reasoning of the minority? How very odd.

Whoops! Don't put words in my mouth. As a bit of a gun nut myself, I actually agree with the 2nd as an individual right based some of the pre-Constitution documents I've looked at (check out the Founder's Constitution for documents behind sections and the 1st 10 Amendments of the Constitution). My point was that some people heralding this decision are some of the same that decry encroaching federal powers.

Philosophicly, how can we maintain a government "by the people, of the people and for the people" if we are afraid of those people being armed under reasonable restrictions?

You are confused.

It is entirely consistent to celebrate the Court's decision in this case and to resist the expansion of Federal powers NOT granted our Federal govt by the Constitution. Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers #45:"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

The Constitution and Bill of Rights both stand in the way of increasing Federal power.

Agreed, the Constitution is designed to distribute power AND make it difficult to change directions (a reason I was uncomfortable with the expansion of executive powers under the previous administration) but I think Madison's trust in the purity of the state governments is a bit misplaced. The question of supremacy (sp?) between state and Federal governments was answered in a bloody civil war. Texas assertions of nullification powers not withstanding.

Unfortunately, in a post agrarian society a strong central government is necessary for industrial and post industrial growth. The myriad of overlapping bureaucracies embraced in our federal system contributes to ineffeciencies. I had a conversation with a guy that was developing a process that would produce fuel from garbage dump methane. His observation was that it would be easier for him to set up the plants to use his process in France than in the US due to the necessity of dealing with Federal, State, County, City and Tribal requirments. His comment was that once you got through the national bureaucracy in France, you were done.

J24, I see your point, but I think you're wrong in this case. I don't see this as "encroaching" federal powers, this is a re-affirmation of a federal power that was always there, but that the states or cities encroached upon. Just like a state or local town can't write a law that infringes on the 1st amendment right of free speech or on the 4th's protection against warrantless searches of someone's home - they can't take away the basic 2nd Am right of keeping and bearing arms.

On a side note - I notice that many many state and local laws grudgingly allow the "keeping" of arms - i.e. you can have it in your house for protection. But the "bearing" of arms is outlawed or severely limited. I think we need to remember that the constitution specifically allows for both.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

His observation was that it would be easier for him to set up the plants to use his process in France than in the US due to the necessity of dealing with Federal, State, County, City and Tribal requirments. His comment was that once you got through the national bureaucracy in France, you were done.

Concentrated power is efficient, that's for sure, and nobody said a benefit of a balance of powers was going to be efficiency. It has other benefits, like more than one answer to a question being possible.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The mayor is expected to demand registration of all handguns, mandatory training for gun owners and a limit of one handgun per person. This last novel idea comes from Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, who according to the Associated Press "says the court ruled people can have a gun for protection, but didn't say they're allowed more than one. http://www.washingto...l#ixzz0sTDu9700

2nd Amendment revised by liberals:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear a single firearm shall not be infringed.

Uh huh.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The mayor is expected to demand registration of all handguns, mandatory training for gun owners and a limit of one handgun per person. This last novel idea comes from Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, who according to the Associated Press "says the court ruled people can have a gun for protection, but didn't say they're allowed more than one. http://www.washingto...l#ixzz0sTDu9700

2nd Amendment revised by liberals:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear a single firearm shall not be infringed.

Uh huh.

Oh, I really hope they're stupid enough to pass this. History indicates they may well be. Will be fun in court if they do!

Link to post

Share on other sites

You think you're joking, but I have had several debates over the years with fans of a flexible, "living" Constitution who suddenly become very rigid when it comes to guns and believe that the only ones protected by the second amendment are muskets in use in the late 18th century.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Rumor around the Illinois Chamber of Commerce is that Daley is actually considering banning the sale of Ammo OR taxing is substantially higher. I think there's no way the Supreme court should have over turned the decision. absolutely rediculous, there are some situations the constitution cannot be used in nowadays, it's out dated in some areas.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Rumor around the Illinois Chamber of Commerce is that Daley is actually considering banning the sale of Ammo OR taxing is substantially higher. I think there's no way the Supreme court should have over turned the decision. absolutely rediculous, there are some situations the constitution cannot be used in nowadays, it's out dated in some areas.

Chris Rock had it nailed a long time ago.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The mayor is expected to demand registration of all handguns, mandatory training for gun owners and a limit of one handgun per person. This last novel idea comes from Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, who according to the Associated Press "says the court ruled people can have a gun for protection, but didn't say they're allowed more than one. http://www.washingto...l#ixzz0sTDu9700

2nd Amendment revised by liberals:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear a single firearm shall not be infringed.

Uh huh.

Oh, I really hope they're stupid enough to pass this. History indicates they may well be. Will be fun in court if they do!

Oh he is planning on it - there is also talk about only allowing it only in your home, kinda contradicts the training part.

Daley is a hypocrite of the highest order recently threatened to stick a gun up a reporters butt and give him a round up it. Some guy in CA left a message on the mayor's answering machine repeating the same thing to the Mayor. The guy was arrested and extradited to Illinois pending charges and trial. here

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest One of Five

Guest One of Five

You think you're joking, but I have had several debates over the years with fans of a flexible, "living" Constitution who suddenly become very rigid when it comes to guns and believe that the only ones protected by the second amendment are muskets in use in the late 18th century.

from the same people who mocked the Bush Administration with 'hey its just a piece of paper'?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What is troubling about the Court's decision is that it was not unanimous. Four liberal justices in their wisdom dissented, 220 years after the founders thought it was settled by making the right to bear arms an enumerated, numbered, clearly spelled out, unambiguous right of Americans. How is this possible? Were Kagan about to replace one of the five with their heads on right, we'd be looking down a deep hole right now.

Jacob Sullum writes:

"In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If “the people” want to ban handguns, they say, “the people” should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church, or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide. …"

Yeah. No shit. If the right to gun ownership can be abused, so can all of the other rights in the Constitution, which to the liberal is this "living" document (read flexible).

And from Ed Morissey:

"The decision reveals a fundamental antipathy on the part of liberal jurists to the clear language of the Constitution. While we celebrate the fact that five Justices got it right, we should be very worried that the other four still would rather search for penumbras and emanations for their own idea of social engineering than in actually reading the clear text of the document they swore to uphold."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Daley is a hypocrite of the highest order recently threatened to stick a gun up a reporters butt and give him a round up it. Some guy in CA left a message on the mayor's answering machine repeating the same thing to the Mayor. The guy was arrested and extradited to Illinois pending charges and trial. here

How stupid do you have to be to leave a potentially threatening message for an elected official?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Daley is a hypocrite of the highest order recently threatened to stick a gun up a reporters butt and give him a round up it. Some guy in CA left a message on the mayor's answering machine repeating the same thing to the Mayor. The guy was arrested and extradited to Illinois pending charges and trial. here

How stupid do you have to be to leave a potentially threatening message for an elected official?

sounds like The Big Lebowski:

Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger till it goes "click."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Daley is a hypocrite of the highest order recently threatened to stick a gun up a reporters butt and give him a round up it. Some guy in CA left a message on the mayor's answering machine repeating the same thing to the Mayor. The guy was arrested and extradited to Illinois pending charges and trial. here

How stupid do you have to be to leave a potentially threatening message for an elected official?

Typical response I'm glad you consider elected officials above the rest of us.

Which was more threatening Daley picking up a rifle with a attached bayonet and angrily threatening to shove it up a reporters ass 5 feet away or a mocking phone call repeating what DALEY had said to a reporter.

Do you really think extradition was necessary? If you do, you surely expect the same standard to apply to Daley who should be arrested immediately.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Daley is a hypocrite of the highest order recently threatened to stick a gun up a reporters butt and give him a round up it. Some guy in CA left a message on the mayor's answering machine repeating the same thing to the Mayor. The guy was arrested and extradited to Illinois pending charges and trial. here

How stupid do you have to be to leave a potentially threatening message for an elected official?

Typical response I'm glad you consider elected officials above the rest of us.

Which was more threatening Daley picking up a rifle with a attached bayonet and angrily threatening to shove it up a reporters ass 5 feet away or a mocking phone call repeating what DALEY had said to a reporter.

Do you really think extradition was necessary? If you do, you surely expect the same standard to apply to Daley who should be arrested immediately.

There are specific laws regarding threatening elected officials.

Which is more dangerous?

A mayor saying something stupid in front of cameras?

Or, an unknown person leaving a threatening message for an elected official?

Are you seriously asking that question?

Was the arrest necessary? I don't know, but I'm glad law enforcement takes these things seriously and that multiple jurisdictions work together to figure it out. What did he say? The recording has not been released.

•Gun training totaling four hours in a classroom and an hour on a firing range will be required before getting a permit. But firing ranges are banned, so training must be completed outside Chicago.

•To transport a gun, it will have to be "broken down," not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case.

•Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling. It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on the front porch or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.

Chicago is a fucking poster child for the long standing mantra of: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Daley, you are truely a clueless prick.

Chicago’s new ordinance demands careful review, and many questions still need to be answered about its implementation. But some things are readily apparent.

First, Heller and McDonald are valuable not just for the laws they’ll remove from the books, but for the work they do convincing legislators not to bother with certain proposals. For every law that might be struck down under McDonald, there might be two or three that now never see the light of day in the first place. Case in point: For weeks, the media reported a proposal to require Chicago gun owners to obtain “gun insurance.” More recently, an idea was floated to limit the number of total firearms a person may own. Neither proposal survived, and it’s not because city pols suddenly like guns. Most likely, in Chicago’s attempt to grapple with the new consequences for violating the right to arms, these ideas were probably seen as not worth the litigation risk. Good.

We applaud Chicago for not adopting the unconstitutional insurance and gun-rationing schemes. Of course, Chicago adopted other measures, not all of which we can approve. This is not a definitive and complete overview, but a sense of where we are.

It remains to be seen how the new training requirement is implemented. It should not be a serious obstacle to gun ownership and could even have some beneficial effect. But if Chicago believes that gun owners should have some range time to develop their shooting skills, how can the city ban ranges? And since there is a right to arms, the gun store ban is about as constitutional as a book store ban.

We never challenged the registration requirement, but our lawsuit does challenge the recurring nature of registration fees. It’s disappointing that this feature of the law wasn’t fixed. On the other hand, there appears to be a new five day grace period to register newly-obtained guns, perhaps solving or alleviating the pre-acquisition registration issue. We’ll see.

Laws banning particular types of common firearms are problematic, but we are intrigued by Chicago’s new take on handgun rostering. A small handful of jurisdictions establish rosters of approved handguns, and ban anything not listed. Such preposterous exercises cannot possibly list all guns protected by the Second Amendment and are all but certain to have an unconstitutional effect. Chicago, to its credit, appears ready to draw a list not of guns that people may own, excluding everything else, but a list of guns people may not own for some specific safety reason. Nobody wants a gun that is prone to misfire or otherwise fails, but if perfectly good firearms are suddenly declared “unsafe,” this will be addressed. Again, time will tell.

Unlike Washington, D.C.’s former “safe storage” law, that went so far as to ban all functional firearms in the home, Chicago’s proposed storage law allows gun owners to have operable guns ready for use in self-defense. But the definition of “home” seems a bit narrow.

The bottom line so far: this is far from perfect, but could have been worse, and the city seems to understand its ability to regulate is not unlimited. We may be close to achieving our litigation objectives in this case, but that doesn’t mean that we’ll ignore other problematic laws or practices. There are natural, practical limits on the scope of any particular lawsuit. Most importantly, we are well on our way to achieving a state of affairs in Chicago where law abiding people can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without major unconstitutional obstacles. The new law, some problems notwithstanding, appears vastly better than the old one. We hope to make it better still.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Isn't it funny that you can find many references to "gun nuts" and the NRA being called "extremists" on this forum, but when the extremists win one in the Supreme Court, there is usually much howling and protest.

The gun nut extremists won. Where is the protest? Looks to me like the only anti-gun person here with the courage of his convictions is Bull Gator.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So, they start 'allowing' guns in Chicago city limits on Monday. You have to get training to receive a permit, can only buy 1 gun a month and cannot have had a DUI.

I like the training idea. Too bad the cops haven't figured out just what that should be yet. I think they should get it figured out and roll it out state wide.

I don't understand why there is no requirement to prove you have proper storage - like a safe - for your gun. I almost think Mayor Squeaky didn't want it because once a gun gets heisted and used in a crime, he'll scream bloody murder.

And what's up with the DUI thing? I'm not condoning that stuff but I fail to see the correlation. Are they trying to say that anyone with a DUI is too irresponsible to have a gun?

DUI is a misdemeanor, isn't it? I really don't know...But it seems dubious that if I get a DUI, I can still drive my 9,000 pound truck around all sorts of people but I can't have a gun.

Finally, I'm worried about guns starting to show up in the city. 6 people were shot in Chicago last night. Thank god they weren't shot with guns, since they're still not allowed and all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I like the training idea. Too bad the cops haven't figured out just what that should be yet. I think they should get it figured out and roll it out state wide.

I don't understand why there is no requirement to prove you have proper storage - like a safe - for your gun.

I question the need for either. Here in FL we have millions of gun owners, over half a million of us have concealed weapons permits, and I have not see the major problems caused by lack of training nor by lack of safe storage.

I might not have a problem with it, if we implemented it right AFTER the requirement that voters pass a basic civics test before casting ballots.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I like the training idea. Too bad the cops haven't figured out just what that should be yet. I think they should get it figured out and roll it out state wide.

I don't understand why there is no requirement to prove you have proper storage - like a safe - for your gun.

I question the need for either. Here in FL we have millions of gun owners, over half a million of us have concealed weapons permits, and I have not see the major problems caused by lack of training nor by lack of safe storage.

I might not have a problem with it, if we implemented it right AFTER the requirement that voters pass a basic civics test before casting ballots.

Or have prospective jurors pass a high school exit exam

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I doubt Punta Gorda has the violent crime issues Chicago currently does. I also doubt the population density is such that one stupid move could shoot an innocent bystander quite easily. Horses for courses.

•Gun training totaling four hours in a classroom and an hour on a firing range will be required before getting a permit. But firing ranges are banned, so training must be completed outside Chicago.

•To transport a gun, it will have to be "broken down," not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case.

•Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling. It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on the front porch or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.

Chicago is a fucking poster child for the long standing mantra of: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Daley, you are truely a clueless prick.

Souns pretty reasonable to me. THe wonderful thing about the SCOTUS ruling is that they implicitly ruled that reasonable restrictions on firearms are perfectly legal

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I doubt Punta Gorda has the violent crime issues Chicago currently does.

I grew up in Miami, and wasn't talking just about my part of the state. I mean statewide. Where are the problems resulting from lack of training or improper storage?

Or should I say, where are the compelling problems...

The nice thing about the Supreme Court ruling is that they have finally affirmed that the second amendment protects a fundamental individual right, and when the government want to infringe on one of those, they have to do it to serve a compelling governmental interest, and what they do must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

OK, if it is a compelling interest, where are all the problems resulting from lack of training? The stories at the link you provided look like criminal problems, not problems caused by lack of training.

•Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling. It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on the front porch or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.

Souns pretty reasonable to me.

That's because you have never cleaned a gun inside a house... It's best done in the garage.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

•Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling. It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on the front porch or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.

Souns pretty reasonable to me.

That's because you have never cleaned a gun inside a house... It's best done in the garage.

Here is one for the Litigators.

"When is a gun a gun?"

When it is loaded with cartridges that will fire (not blanks).

Clinton brought forth the question, when is "is" is.

So when is a Gun a Gun??

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

OK, if it is a compelling interest, where are all the problems resulting from lack of training? The stories at the link you provided look like criminal problems, not problems caused by lack of training.

I think it's a safe generalization that criminals don't practice since they'd need a FOID card to do so.

If they do train, they really suck because there are A LOT of innocent folks caught in the wrong place and killed in the city.

So, to extrapolate, Joe Shmoe picks up a piece and a baddie comes in his house. Will he be effective or just a menace to those outside his walls?

It's irrefutable that the wall of a house doesn't stand a great chance of stopping anything over a 9.

Besides, if you're going to own a tool designed to kill, should you not know how to use it in a proper and safe manner?

Don't get me wrong Tom. I'm glad for the ruling.

My fear is that guns will get stolen and used in crime, or that some innocent person sitting in their condo gets plugged because Joe doesn't know what the heck he's doing.

Not only do both scenarios suck for those involved but it gives a great deal of fodder to those who would apply pressure to take the right away again.

I can very easily see where Mayor Squeaky decides he's not forcing anyone to live in the city but if you want to live there, you have to sign a waiver that you won't have a weapon within city limits.

And before you say he can't do that, just ask anyone who had a plane at Meigs Field about what he can and cannot do. He does what he pleases. He gets his way.

Down here in hurricane country, many houses have concrete block walls with rebar and concrete in the holes. I don't know what kind of round they will stop, but I strongly suspect they'll stop larger and more powerful rounds than a 9.

I completely agree that people should get firearms training and practice regularly (unless Bull Gator's taxes on ammo make practicing too expensive). Similarly, I think people should learn basic civics before they vote. But is there some compelling state interest in forcing them to do so? I'm still looking for it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

One month ago, the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. City of Chicago that states, not just the federal government, are prevented from violating Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court did not, however, define the full scope of the right, nor the standard of review by which challenged statutes will be judged.

In other words: It ain’t over yet. A number of pending lawsuits across the country will further shape how the Second Amendment will be applied.

The first lawsuit of note comes from Chicago. As soon as the Supreme Court struck down the city’s handgun ban in McDonald, Mayor Richard Daley worked with the city council to pass a very restrictive gun-control regime to take the ban’s place. The National Rifle Association promptly filed suit, challenging, among other things: a ban on having more than one “assembled and operable” firearm in the home at any time; a rule forbidding gun owners to carry their firearms in their own garages, porches, and places of business; and a policy outlawing gun shops and shooting ranges in the city in spite of the training and range time the city requires for obtaining a permit.

California, which has long been the darling of gun-control groups for its heavy firearm restrictions, is also facing a day in court. Gun-show promoters have been litigating their right to have a show on Alameda County grounds, an action barred by a county ordinance. A three-judge panel decided last April that the Second Amendment applied to California, anticipating the conclusion in McDonald, but found that the ban on gun shows on county property was still constitutional.

The Ninth Circuit voted to re-hear the case en banc (that is, all eleven judges would review the decision of the three-judge panel), but in light of McDonald, that order has been rescinded and the case remanded to the original panel for reconsideration. Rescinding an en banc re-hearing is an unusual turn of events, but nothing follows the norm in this suit. The panel has asked for further briefing from the parties, indicating that it may reverse itself on the constitutionality of the gun-show ban.

Also, the Supreme Court has vacated a decision of the Second Circuit upholding New York’s ban on nunchuks and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its holding in McDonald. Though the McDonald case focused on firearms, the text of the Second Amendment encompasses “arms” in general, and the Second Circuit will provide some guidance on the constitutional protection of martial-arts weapons.

Just up the Hudson River, Alan Gura, the attorney who carried the day in the Heller and McDonald decisions, filed suit to challenge the discretionary permitting system for handgun carry in Westchester County, N.Y. At issue is whether permit applicants can constitutionally be required to show a “unique, heightened need for self-defense apart from the general public” in order to carry a gun. The Second Amendment allows for no such restriction on the right to bear arms, and by the time a need for self-defense arises — think, for example, of a woman who’s being stalked — a potential victim needs to be able to carry a gun right now, not after pulling together paperwork and waiting for government approval.

The New York right-to-carry case joins a similar suit that Gura filed against the District of Columbia in the wake of the Heller decision. California guns activists have an existing lawsuit challenging the concealed-carry policies of Yolo and Sacramento counties that will now be reconsidered in light of the McDonald decision. At least one Wisconsin prosecutor has declared that he will no longer enforce the state’s ban on concealed carry because of the recent Supreme Court action.

Yet another Alan Gura lawsuit is a challenge to North Carolina’s emergency-powers statutes. In essence, whenever a state of emergency is declared at any level of government in the Tarheel State, firearms sales or transfers are outlawed, as is carrying a firearm off one’s own premises (even for those with concealed-handgun permits). That doesn’t sound unreasonable at first blush, but officials have declared at least a dozen emergencies since September 2004, usually encompassing the entire state. This is an on/off switch for an enumerated right. Why have rights at all if the government can turn them off at will?

The future of the scope of the Second Amendment is unclear, but McDonald has guaranteed that, at last, a liberty the Founders considered worthy of a constitutional amendment will be taken seriously in courts across the land.

Reasonable gun owners note that a garage is a crazy place for a person to carry his gun, and the NRA are a bunch of extremists for challenging that rule in Chicago.

Alan Gura, nutty as always, thinks that it's unreasonable that people show a special need before exercising a constitutional right.

As for North Carolina's law, I'm not even going to joke about that one. I'd break that law if I were a NC resident in a hurricane-destroyed area. I hope Gura wins again.

Looks like he had a gun. What he needed was some friends, also with guns.

North Las Vegas Police say Nettleton was attacked inside his garage by multiple suspects. A neighbor called police to report hearing several gunshots coming from the home on Emerald Stone, near Donna Street and Washburn. There was an exchange of gunfire between the suspects and Nettleton before the victim was shot.

•Gun training totaling four hours in a classroom and an hour on a firing range will be required before getting a permit. But firing ranges are banned, so training must be completed outside Chicago.

•To transport a gun, it will have to be "broken down," not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case.

•Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling. It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on the front porch or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.

Chicago is a fucking poster child for the long standing mantra of: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Daley, you are truely a clueless prick.

...“While the city has adopted new regulations that make it legal to own handguns,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “they have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training. The new ordinance prohibits public gun ranges inside the city yet the city demands that handgun owners get at least one hour of range training time.

“This is a ‘Catch-22’ scenario,” he continued, “that seems deliberately designed to discourage Chicago residents from exercising their firearm civil rights barely two months after those rights were restored by the Supreme Court.”

...“By banning public gun ranges,” Gottlieb said, “and by banning the loan and rental of firearms at such ranges, Chicago is acting under color of law to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms, and to conveniently receive the education required under the ordinance that is necessary to obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit. The city is violating both the Second and First amendments, and we are asking the court to put an end to this nonsense.”

Share on other sites

Well the gun ban on San Francisco transit advertisements lasted just up until the Second Amendment Foundation decided to run some ads for their upcoming Gun Rights Conference in that city.

What is remarkable about the advertisement is that it appears the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has violated its own guidelines, which prohibit advertising that "appears to promote the use of firearms." The MTA recently caused a flap by doctoring movie posters for a Will Farrell-Mark Wahlberg movie called "The Other Guys," removing handguns from the actors' hands and replacing them with a can of mace, a badge or just bare fists.

"We take this annual conference around the country," Gottlieb said, "to areas where our rights might be threatened. We're holding it in San Francisco this year because SAF was successful in overturning the city's 2005 handgun ban. Next year, we're holding it in Chicago, where SAF's lawsuit in McDonald v. City of Chicago led to the Supreme Court's ruling in June that applies the Second Amendment to the states.

"We suspect the MTA is allowing our ads in San Francisco despite their policy because they believed we were prepared to file a lawsuit on First and Second Amendment grounds if, for any reason, the city didn't take them," Gottlieb stated. "Knowing we were responsible for the McDonald victory over Chicago and the defeat of their own 2005 gun ban proposition, and probably aware of our litigation in New York, Maryland, North Carolina, Illinois and California, they did not want to lock horns with us again."

The Second Amendment Foundation immediately filed an appeal following dismissal of its challenge to Illinois statutes that prohibit the carrying of loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection in the case of Moore v. Madigan.

...

In her ruling, Judge ************cough stated, “This Court finds that the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons’ and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon’ statutes do not violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home. Further, even if this Court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny.”

“We look forward to winning this important case on appeal even if it means going back to the United States Supreme Court for a third time,” Gottlieb stated. “The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except outside your home or that it only applies inside your house. We don’t check our constitutional rights at the front door.”

Judge Myerscough denied SAF and its co-plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against two laws in Illinois that make it a crime to carry loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection. Instead, she supported the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

What the Supreme Court said:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Second Amendment Foundation is likely to win again on the question of whether "such as self-defense within the home" was intended to restrict the second amendment to applying only within the home. As to whether or not Illinois can prohibit the carrying of loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection, that seems to me to be a bit too much of an infringement to survive second amendment scrutiny as well. We will see.

U.S. District Court for Maryland ruled that "The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home." U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg noted, "In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment's protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and 'self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.'"

...

"Equally important in Judge Legg's ruling," he added, "is that concealed carry statutes that are so discretionary in nature as to be arbitrary do not pass constitutional muster."

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Judge Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

More analysis here. The bit on concealed carry laws means that we will soon see "shall issue" carry policies in most states that do not already have them.

The Second Amendment Foundation immediately filed an appeal following dismissal of its challenge to Illinois statutes that prohibit the carrying of loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection in the case of Moore v. Madigan.

...

In her ruling, Judge ************cough stated, “This Court finds that the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons’ and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon’ statutes do not violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home. Further, even if this Court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny.”

“We look forward to winning this important case on appeal even if it means going back to the United States Supreme Court for a third time,” Gottlieb stated. “The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except outside your home or that it only applies inside your house. We don’t check our constitutional rights at the front door.”

Judge Myerscough denied SAF and its co-plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against two laws in Illinois that make it a crime to carry loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection. Instead, she supported the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

What the Supreme Court said:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Second Amendment Foundation is likely to win again on the question of whether "such as self-defense within the home" was intended to restrict the second amendment to applying only within the home. As to whether or not Illinois can prohibit the carrying of loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection, that seems to me to be a bit too much of an infringement to survive second amendment scrutiny as well. We will see.

What I find absolutely ludicrous is that a judge could say with a straight face that 2nd AM only applies inside the home. How then, are we to defend ourselves against an oppressive gov't if we can't leave our house? The 2nd AM has very little to do with self-defense and everything to do with being a roadblock to an over-reaching, oppressive gov't just like the one our FF's overthrew. Of course, SD (and hunting, sports, etc) is a valid use of a gun - but not the reason the 2nd Am was written into the BORs.

In her ruling, Judge ************cough stated, "This Court finds that the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons' and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon' statutes do not violate Plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home. Further, even if this Court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny."

What I find absolutely ludicrous is that a judge could say with a straight face that 2nd AM only applies inside the home.

That's not exactly what she said, she said only that the right has not been recognized outside the home by the Supreme Court or her circuit. Her next sentence leaves open the possibility that it might apply outside the home. Now we have a different court saying it does apply outside the home. The question will probably ultimately have to go to the Supreme Court because gun nuts are not going to give up on the crazy notion that the second amendment applies outside the home, nor are responsible people going to give up on the common sense notion that it does not.